Search

Background: Almost 2 million people in the UK live with sight loss, and this number is predicted to double by 2050. There is increasing recognition of the need to provide counselling services to people living with sight loss. Aim: The aim of this research was to assess whether there is an unmet need for counselling services for people living with sight loss in North Wales and to estimate the social value and budget impact of the potential roll‐out of counselling services to this population. Method: Between December 2020 and May 2021, a telephone survey was completed by 192 people living with sight loss in North Wales, UK. The survey instrument was a 19‐item questionnaire, which included the Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well‐being Scale (SWEMWBS). Using data from the SWEMWBS and published statistics, a social return on investment (SROI) and budget impact analysis were conducted. Results: Most respondents (84%, n = 161) had never been offered counselling in relation to sight loss. Thirty‐nine per cent (n = 74) stated that they would use a new counselling service if it were available. Fifty‐one per cent (n = 97) indicated that counselling could be especially beneficial for people who have recently been registered or diagnosed with sight loss (the timely window). Of those who completed the SWEMWBS, approximately 25% reported low mental well‐being or probable depression. Social return on investment analysis estimated that providing counselling services for people with sight loss in North Wales could generate a social value of £3.42 for every £1 invested. Conclusion: Timely counselling may improve an individual's ability to cope with sight loss and improve their quality of life over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Short breaks help maintain caring relationships, enabling people to remain living in their own homes and contributing significant economic benefit to public services. However, relatively little is known about the added social value generated by community-based short breaks. To address this evidence gap, we explored the feasibility of using a social return on investment (SROI) evaluation to explore a day support service in North Wales for people living with dementia and their unpaid carers. Following good practice for evaluating complex interventions, we developed a logic model based on the literature and interviews to understand the mechanisms and outcomes of the day support service. Using questionnaires, we quantified outcomes for the current service cohort, which included people living with dementia, unpaid carers, and paid companions. Seven people living with dementia, three unpaid carers, and four companions completed questionnaires. By following the SROI analysis approach, three key learning points were identified. The first was around ways to capture outcomes from all stakeholder subgroups expected to experience material change. The second concerned the importance of collecting longitudinal data. This included the need to consider how to adapt the SROI method to work with small populations. The third concerned how to value "maintenance" of wellbeing as well as improved wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Hip and knee osteoarthritis is a common cause of pain and disability, which can be improved by exercise interventions. However, regular exercise is uncommon in this group because the low physical activity level in the general population is probably reduced even further by pain related fear of movement. The best method of encouraging increased activity in this patient group is not known. A booklet has been developed for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. It focuses on changing disadvantageous beliefs and encouraging increased physical activity. Methods/Design This paper describes the design of a Phase II randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of this new booklet for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis in influencing illness and treatment beliefs, and to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger definitive RCT in terms of health status and exercise behaviour. A computerised search of four general medical practice patients' record databases will identify patients older than 50 years of age who have consulted with hip or knee pain in the previous twelve months. A random sample of 120 will be invited to participate in the RCT comparing the new booklet with a control booklet, and we expect 100 to return final questionnaires. This trial will assess the feasibility of recruitment and randomisation, the suitability of the control intervention and outcome measurement tools, and will provide an estimate of effect size. Outcomes will include beliefs about hip and knee pain, beliefs about exercise, fear avoidance, level of physical activity, health status and health service costs. They will be measured at baseline, one month and three months. Discussion We discuss the merits of testing effectiveness in a phase II trial, in terms of intermediate outcome measures, whilst testing the processes for a larger definitive trial. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of testing the psychometric properties of the primary outcome measures concurrently with the trial. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24554946

Abstract Background The growing number of people with dementia, and the increasing cost of care, provides a major incentive to develop and test methods of supporting them in the community for longer. Most attention has been given to pharmacological interventions, but there is increasing recognition that psychosocial interventions may be equally effective, even preferable where medication has negative side-effects. Reminiscence groups, run by professionals and volunteers, which use photographs, recordings and other objects to trigger personal memories are probably the most popular therapeutic approach to working with people with dementia, but there is little evidence for their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The recent inclusion of family carers in groups with people with dementia, notably in our own pilot studies, has generated informal evidence that this joint approach improves relationships between people with dementia and their carers, and benefits both. Design and methods This multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family care-givers has two parallel arms – an intervention group and a control group who receive care as usual. The intervention consists of joint reminiscence groups held weekly for twelve consecutive weeks, followed by monthly maintenance sessions for a further seven months. The primary outcome measures are the quality of life of people with dementia, as assessed by QoL-AD, and their care-givers' mental health as assessed by the GHQ-28. Secondary outcomes include: the autobiographical memories of people with dementia; the quality of the relationship between them and their care-givers; and the levels of depression and anxiety felt by them and their care-giver. Using a 5% significance level, comparison of 200 pairs attending joint reminiscence groups with 200 pairs receiving usual treatment will yield 80% power to detect a standardised difference of 0.38 in the QoL-AD rated by the person with dementia and 0.28 in the GHQ-28 or carer-rated QoL-AD. The trial will include a cost-effectiveness analysis from a public sector perspective. Discussion Our Cochrane review (2005) on reminiscence therapy for people with dementia did not identify any rigorous trials or economic analyses in this field. Trial Registration ISRCTN42430123

Abstract Background There is wide recognition that pragmatic randomised trials are the best vehicle for economic evaluation. This is because trials provide the best chance of ensuring internal validity, not least through the rigorous prospective collection of patient-specific data. Furthermore the marginal cost of collecting economic data alongside clinical data is typically modest. UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) does not require a standard operating procedure (SOP) for economic evaluation as a prerequisite for trial unit registration. We judge that such a SOP facilitates the integration of health economics into trials. Methods A collaboration between health economists and trialists at Bangor University led to the development of a SOP for economic evaluation alongside pragmatic trials, in addition to the twenty SOPs required by UKCRC for registration, which include randomisation, data management and statistical analysis. Results Our recent telephone survey suggests that no other UKCRC-registered trials unit currently has an economic SOP. Conclusion We argue that UKCRC should require, from all Trials Units undertaking economic evaluation and seeking registration or re-registration, a SOP for economic evaluation as one of their portfolio of supporting SOPs.